a230 versus a330 viewfinder magnification

[ti-force]

Hey guys,

I'm pretty much a newbie to cameras, but I'm in the market for a new one since the CCD sensor went out on my Canon S2 IS:frown2: . My girlfriend currently has a Canon Rebel XTI which came with an 18-55mm lens, and I recently bought her a 75-300mm lens for it. I've been using her camera since mine broke, so I can't really see purchasing a camera that's not a DSLR of my own, since I'm pretty much spoiled now .

The main reason I want my own camera instead of using her camera, is because I'd like to take some macro shots, and a macro lens for her camera is about the same price as a Sony a330:shocked: , so I don't really see the point in spending that kind of money for a lens for her camera, if you know what I mean .

Anyway, enough rambling and on to the topic. I'm looking at the Sony a230 and a330. I've read a couple of reviews, but that didn't really help me decide between the two; one review said the a230 was a better choice because of price and viewfinder magnification, while the other review stated that the a330 was a better buy even though the viewfinder magnification was less. I really like the live view mode that the a330 offers, so I'm leaning towards that model as of right now, unless you guys suggest otherwise.

They said that the "A330 seems to render yellows and greens a little truer than the A230", and they also stated that the "A330 also did better focusing in low light than the A230 or A380, and its flash range was also better than both, which makes the Sony A330 the better choice for indoor photography". According to this site, the viewfinder magnification difference between the two models is: the a230's is 0.83x and the a330's is .74.

So my question's to you guys are: which opinion do you agree with and how much difference will I notice in the viewfinder magnification between both models?

Also, how beneficial do you think the live view mode would be in getting the focus correct before taking the shot? I ask because I will take a lot of pictures in manual mode and I may have to use the manual focus. I understand that I would have to zoom in, focus and then zoom back out to take that shot, or I guess that would work okay. What do you guys think?

Thanks!!

Casey

[OldClicker]

The real difference between the two is the Fast Focus Live View on the A330. I have the older A350 (after switching from an XTi) and wouldn't be without FFLV. I did not notice the difference in the viewfinder size when I switched. I would say the greens, flash, low light focus, etc. differences would be insignificant.

I almost always use manual focus for macros, but seldom use the digital zoom for it. That may be just me and that I don't find it's use very convenient. I picked up a used Minolta AF macro lens for $350 and it is wondeful. Here are a couple of DBs that show the Minolta and Sony lenses that will work on a Sony body.

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Any questions, just ask.

TF

[ti-force]

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it, and I think you just talked me into the a330 . Also, thanks for the links:thumbsup: ; those will be very useful.

As for the macro lens, what is your opinion on the Sony 30mm SAM macro? Experience with rifle scopes has taught me that good quality glass isn't cheap, and you get what you pay for, although, once you get to a certain price range, you start to pay a lot more for small increases in performance. Would you consider the same to be true with camera lenses? I'm assuming most of the price is the glass itself (coatings, labor and such), but mostly, I'm just curious.

Thanks again.

[OldClicker]

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it, and I think you just talked me into the a330 . Also, thanks for the links:thumbsup: ; those will be very useful.

As for the macro lens, what is your opinion on the Sony 30mm SAM macro? Experience with rifle scopes has taught me that good quality glass isn't cheap, and you get what you pay for, although, once you get to a certain price range, you start to pay a lot more for small increases in performance. Would you consider the same to be true with camera lenses? I'm assuming most of the price is the glass itself (coatings, labor and such), but mostly, I'm just curious.

Thanks again.

I agree with your thoughts on value and (in my limited experience) find that when you know your equipment and its limitations you can get wonderful images from anything. The better it is, of course, the less limitations you have to deal with.

For flowers and things that don't run away the 30mm should be fine. For things that are small and run away, you will have to be very close. Consider something in the 90+mm range if you can.

Search through this forum and you will find posts where I went into a lot more depth on old Minolta lenses and others have gone into great detail on the very nice 3rd party offerings available.

TF

[Anbesol]

Would you consider the same to be true with camera lenses?

For sure!

The 30mm is not the ideal range for macros, there is a 50mm, a 100mm, and a 200mm macro that are all better ranges for the work. The 100mm is the most common, typical range for macro, its the one I use and love (and is incredibly sharp). If its for the specific purpose of macro work, I would look at the 100mm, if there is other work you'd like it to do, then is a good time to look at the others.

one review said the a230 was a better choice because of price and viewfinder magnification, while the other review stated that the a330 was a better buy even though the viewfinder magnification was less

That is very much the trade-off for an awesome live view. The A230 does have a brighter pentaprism, but that is because it has the live-view. For macro work, live-view is *very much* worth the trade-off.

Check out the used Minolta 100mm f/2.8, its the same design as the current Sony design, and you can get at a much cheaper price used as Minolta. There are 2 different minolta models, and the only difference in the two is a circularly shaped aperture blades, which is about as minuscule a difference as you get.

[ti-force]

Thanks for the replies guys, I appreciate the advice:thumbsup: . I ordered the A330 and I'm waiting as I type for the man in brown to show up with it . I waited on the Sony 30mm macro lens, so I'll keep my eyes open for the Minolta 100mm macro lens. What are some advantages with the 100mm vs 30mm? Is the greatest advantage the ability to get shots of live things that might fly or run away? Again, excuse the newbie questions .

[Anbesol]

well 30mm is very wide for a macro, meaning, the lens will almost be touching the subject at 1:1 magnification, whereas, the 100mm gives you a bit of distance. (35cm vs 13cm).

This is also advantageous for macro flash, I can use hot shoe mounted flash for macros on 100mm, but not for 30mm. At least at full magnification.

[ti-force]

Hey guys! I finally bought a macro lens for my camera, but it hasn't arrived yet. I bought a Minolta AF 50/2.8. I went with the 50mm to start with. Maybe it will do mostly everything I want to do with it. It's supposed to be in good condition, but I won't know until it gets here. I got if for around $160 shipped. What do you guys think?

[Anbesol]

Sounds like a good deal. Post some pics when you get it.

[ti-force]

Will do :thumbsup:. I'd like to think that it will be here today, but USPS has became even more inefficient lately, so I have my doubts. I'll definitely post some pics when it arrives. I really think I'll enjoy a macro lens.